From e85e284550a8afdf68dd5a9d33a71842594fd883 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simeon Warner Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:50:48 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] More questions about --- TODO.md | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/TODO.md b/TODO.md index 6b16451..2a9ca22 100644 --- a/TODO.md +++ b/TODO.md @@ -14,10 +14,15 @@ Questions about ResourceSync v0.9 spec Example 2.7 ----------- -- this is the only example that gives a content type for the . Should we either be consistent with that or maybe drop it here too? +- this is one of three examples (2.7, 9.1, 9.2) that give a content type for the . Example 2.6 does not have a type attribute. Should we either be consistent and use that always, or is a mix better? - I am not sure the rel="describedby" within the block for the capability list has the correct meaning. Doesn't it mean in that context that the capability list if descibedby the giev resource? That seems not quite the same as our usual interpretation of top level rel="describedby" which we take to be a description of the set of resources rather than the capability document. +Section 3 +--------- + +- The description of top-level says "It can have several attributes and the ones defined in the ResourceSync XML Namespace are as follows:" ... and then describes just the rel and href attributes. The examples 2.7, 9.1 and 9.2 also use the type attribute which should presumably be added to this list. I would also change the description to be more specific about attributes, perhaps: "Three attributes are defined in the ResourceSync XML Namespace and are listed below, other attributes may also be used:" + Section 9.2 -----------